- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.
The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.
The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”
“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”
The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.
In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.
Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.
Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”
It’s not a surprise, the Republicans are following the “How to Fascist: for Dummies” step by step book
And some Americans are just letting it happen, its kinda sad :/
Not just letting, actively voting for it.
And they feel proud for it.
Remember when Rs wore shirts that said “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat”?
I remember when conservatives were loud and proud about “Better dead than red”, now they cant even scream cause they got Putins big red hammer down their throats.
Russia isn’t “red” (communist) anymore, which is what they objected to. Russia is now fascist, which they love. As much as you might like to believe otherwise, there’s nothing inconsistent about their behavior.
No need to be rude. Fascists appropriate red hammers all the time. Lenin made it trendy.
What would you suggest we do? I’ve voted against this crap to no avail. I’ve supported causes to no avail. Nothing short of a very ugly, bloody revolution will change this, and likely not for the better.
If you look at Turkey or Hungary over the last decade, people were pissed when their governments became overreaching, but ultimately their authoritarian governments won and the people had little choice, no civil war, no grand uprising of the people. The US is going in the same direction and I doubt anything will happen that can stop it. But on the flip side dictators never last forever. Their power will wain and fall. But for most of us, that will last our entire lifetime, which is an awful future no one should be celebrating.
Don’t give up my friend. Things suck for sure, but we have a little power left. Spread ideas, organize your community, organize your workplace, go vote for the least fascist of the candidates.
We probably can’t save ourselves, but we can build a solid platform for others to use. Something about old men planting trees…
They want it.
“Thomas wants to silence people who make him look bad and might restrict his sugar daddy from giving him money.”
Pretty much. He wants to be able to sue newspapers with impunity for writing about him and even if he doesn’t win he hopes to get the courts to agree to keep them from writing about him long enough it becomes irrelevant. It’s disgusting and disturbing coming from a judge sitting on the highest court. And any currently sitting Supreme Court Justice not speaking out against Thomas and requesting his resignation is complicit in his actions.
Conservatives will strip you of every right you have as long as they can get away with it.
Clarence Thomas is a corrupted piece of shit that should be in jail.
*In hell
Jail exists though
- hell in a cell
One on one, with the undertaker! Holla, holla, holla!
Indeed.
*in a jail in hell
This would backfire so hard on the Republicans.
Fox News would go down in flames. Every conservative news outlet would be sued out of existence. Their entire media ecosystem is based on demonstrable lies.
Meanwhile actual newspapers would be laughing their asses off as court after court found that their stories were firmly based on observable reality.
Except the courts that are stacked with Federalist Society judges…
The right has been working a long game to fuck over the country. And got a big shortcut when McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee.
In jury trials, judges don’t decide fact. It would be fine.
Bench trials most certainly do, and appeals courts all the way up to the Supreme Court are bench (judge) deciding the outcome.
Appeals courts NEVER decide fact. They are there to see if there has been an error of LAW.
Which are packed with conservative judges who happily twist their interpretation of to serve their partisan views.
coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers
Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.”
Eat shit, Bob!
Every statement from Clarence Thomas for the rest of time should end with, “…at least that’s what the people who bought me this boat said I should say.”
Can someone smarter than I please make this browser extension?
I expect the Republicans to do nothing about this corrupt asshole. The lack of any kind of pushback from the Dems is worrying.
There is pushback, but if they try to do things in a legalistic manner, these things take time. Biden was very publicly setting the stage for further steps just a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oct/01/biden-supreme-court-maga
The democrats could follow the example of the republicans and abandon all norms and decency, which would allow them to play the game on a more equal playing field with the republicans, but in doing so, they would become what they are trying to stop.
They’d also be 30 years behind in stacking the courts and regulatory agencies with patsies.
If the shoe was on the other foot, then it would not surprise me one bit if the republicans tried storming the supreme court with a mob. Once you throw out norms and conventions and just stick to the pretense of them when it is convenient for you, then a lot becomes possible.
But if the democrats try to actually do things in a legalistic manner, that will take time. I’m already very relieved that they are at last publicly calling out the fascist behaviours of the extreme right media and republican party. For too long they have been pretending that it was all business as usual, while the USA democracy has already been in decline for decades.
Curious what pushback you’d like to see from Dems? I’ve heard many condemn him, but no actions taken, I assume because none are viable.
Why did “Dems” quickly become Biden? Is it because you found numerous quotes from Democratic Senators like Whitehouse and Van Hollen taking him to task? Biden criticized Thomas after his comments on contraception and marriage equality.
I haven’t heard much condemnation, maybe you’re more plugged in than I am. Has Biden even mentioned Thomas’ corruption?
Multiple times
The lack of any kind of pushback from the Dems is worrying.
Dems don’t do pushback.
Of course he does. Fascist gonna fascist. He stated he wants to stick it to the liberals. Its his reason for getting up in the morning.
I just want to know if people are upvoting you because this is an unknown fact that people should be more aware of or because people just feel like this is true. Do you have a source for this statement?
Edit: Yeah - downvote me for asking a legit question. I guess you can kick the people out of reddit but not the reddit out of the people.
What part? That he wants to get even with liberals? One of his aids went on record saying that Thomas said it.
Oh, geezus. Thank you for the link.
I just upvoted your original question. Not fair you’re being down voted like that. It was a legit question.
Agreed, it’s a legit question. I think some people are upset because you called them out.
But who is going to go after Clarence Thomas? That’s the more important question.
unless you get a super majoirty of dems in the Senate, the chances of Thomas being impeached is zero.
…
…
Y-yes, correct; for legal reasons, impeachment is definitely, certainly, absolutely the only thing I am referring to.
Of course! We don’t need freedom of the press! What we need is a special department that is able to change headlines at a moments notice so even past news can be changed! That way we can have an inner party within the government comprised of loyalists and patriots monitoring the proletarian masses for dissonance and inappropriate thoughts.
Heh. For some reason I have suddenly become deathly afraid of rats…
I’ll go get the face cage. BRB.
Bring Rat Back?
deleted by creator
when this guy dies i’m totally going to shit on his grave
I’m not wasting my time, but I sure would pay someone else to do it.
You got $20 and a bus ticket?
I’ll do it for five bucks and fifteen gallons of gas.
If they remove protections for the press, how long until FOX News goes into bankruptcy following a flood of defamation lawsuits? (Plus Newsmax, OAN, and other right wing “news organizations.”)
Removing freedom of the press cuts both ways.
Removing freedom of the press cuts both ways.
Except when the judiciary is compromised.
This is the same guy who is in an interracial marriage and voted to illegalize interracial marriage. He literally can’t be trusted with anything.
He didn’t vote to make interracial marriage illegal. That’s not come before the court (and likely will not, because people would actually flip the fuck out)
No, what Thomas did was write a dissent in Obergefell that tried to create a make believe difference between the historical precedent of marriage being only between a man and a woman, and the historical precedent of interracial marriage being just as illegal as gay marriage.
He says that what he does is fine and should be celebrated, but if people he doesn’t like, do the same, they should rot in prison or be chemically castrated. (Both historically used punishments for being gay)
Close, he was saying these cases were susceptible to being overturned if they weren’t reinforced with legislation. For fifty years, Roe was called a bad judicial decision, even by Joe Biden and needed to be solidified in legislation. This is the danger of the courts “legislating from the bench” instead of just deciding constitutionality.
You’re thinking of Mitch McConnell. Thomas wrote in his opinion on overturning Roe v Wade that it should also be considered to overturn gay marriage and access to certain birth control methods, but left out anything about interracial marriage.